The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of Section 185 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in the context of suits for possession and ownership of property.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. - These appeals arise from judgment/decree dated March 05, 2011 in two suits for recovery of possession involving two plots; one measuring 600 sq. yds. forming part of Khasra No. 75 (private no. 87/4) situated in revenue estate of village Zamrudpur, Delhi in Suit No. 305/2009; and the second one measuring 200 sq. yds. forming part of Khasra No. 321/75 (private no. 87/4) situated in revenue estate of village Zamrudpur, Delhi in Suit No.304/2009 (collectively referred to as 'suit property' hereinafter) passed by ADJ-06 (Central) Delhi. Having noted that both these appeals have a similar factual background and raise common issues, I deem it appropriate to decide these appeals through this common judgment.

2. These appeals were earlier filed as revision petitions numbered as CRP 100/2011 and CRP 101/2011, however these petitions were then converted as Regular First Appeals (RFA) vide order dated April 16, 2018 and renumbered as RFA 396/2018 and RFA 397/2018 respectively.

3. Rfa 396/2018 earlier numbered as CRP100/2011 has been filed with the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside / quash the Judgment and Decree dated 05.03.2011 passed by Shri Rajinder Kumar Shastri, Additional District Judge 06 (central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS No. 305/2009 titled as "M/s. R.K. Associates Vs. shri Kishan Lal and another.

AND/OR

Any other further order (s) / relief (s) which this Hon'ble. Court may deem just fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner herein."

4. Whereas RFA 397/2018 earlier numbered as CRP101/2011 has been filed with the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside / quash the Judgment and Decree dated 05.03.2011 passed by Shri Rajinder Kumar Shastri, Additional District Judge 06 (central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS No. 304/2009 titled as "M/s. R.K. Associates Vs. shri Kishan Lal and another.

AND/OR

Any other further order (s) / relief (s) which this Hon'ble. Court may deem just fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner herein."

5. Brief factual background in the appeals is, the respondent No.1/plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit property through decree dated January 21, 1993 passed by the Mr. Shiv Charan learned ADJ, Delhi in its favour. The sale deeds got registered in its favour by the order of the court dated November 08, 1993 through the Court Stenographer (though in RFA 397/2018 the sale deed is stated to be of November 08, 1994). The possession of the suit property was taken by the respondent No.1/ plaintiff on January 16, 1997 / March 16, 1997 respectively. According to the respondent No.1/plaintiff, appellant/defendant No.1 along with his sons and ten other persons entered forcibly the suit property and upon being questioned, threatened the partners of respondent No.1/plaintiff and took possession of the suit property forcibly and unlawfully. In this background the respondent No.1 / plaintiff approached the learned Trial Court seeking a decree of possession of the suit property, mesne profits for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- per month w.e.f. date of dispossession till restoration of possession.

6. Whereas the appellant/defendant No.1 questioned the title of respondent No.1/plaintiff and took a stand that the respondent No.1/plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit property from Murti Devi (whom the appellant/defendant's father treated as a daughter). According to the appellant/defendant No.1, Murti Devi was allowed to occupy 500 sq. yds. of land, out of the suit property plots bearing no. 87/3 and 87/4. Since there was some acrimony between appellant/defendant No.1 and Murti Devi, it resulted in a suit for partition of the said plots, which resulted in a compromise. Plot bearing